Judge Ricardo Lewandowski, of the Federal Supreme Court, rejected a habeas corpus order in which the defense of the orthopedic doctor requested the suspension of the criminal case responsible for the offense of passive corruption, for allegedly performing surgeries on the Unified Health System (SUS). ).
At the invitation of the SUS, the doctor was arrested in this act and denounced by the Ministry of Public Affairs of Paraná for charging R$4600 to a woman for knee surgery at Bom Jesus Hospital, Toledo (PR). After borrowing money from her daughter-in-law, she is informed, at the hospital window, that SUS surgeries are free. Then he interrogated the city’s public prosecutor’s son-in-law, and waited for the crime to be committed, with the amount being handed over in the form of specific bills.
In the Supreme Court Supreme Court, the physician’s defense asserted that the offense would not be passive corruption, but a concussion, with the condition of an undue advantage. The basic difference between the two offenses lies in the type of situation: in law, the act of “request” is criminal conduct, while in the offense of passive corruption the rule speaks of “to ask or receive.” For a physician’s attorney, the presence of a prepared act would also mark an impossible crime.
Another argument was that there were excesses in the number of times the amount was charged. According to the records, on 10/12/2015 the patient returned to the office for the first postoperative consultation and was assigned by the doctor, who said that payment should be made no later than 17/12/2015, which is the date of withdrawal of the spots. According to the victim, the doctor threatened to “lock” the operation to the other knee if the payment was not made. At the second postoperative consultation, the charge was supposed to be made by the orthopedic secretary.
In his decision, Judge Lewandowski stated that it was the responsibility of the natural judge of the case, if possible, to amend the description of the fact contained in the complaint and give it another legal definition at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The rapporteur noted that the High Court of Justice, when analyzing the appeal filed there, found that the TJ-PR had confirmed the adequacy between the truth described in the complaint and the criminal type of passive corruption, confirming the occurrence of the flagrant offense.
By rejecting the request to stop the criminal case through the High Commissioner, the minister stressed that this is an exceptional measure, and should not be applied unless there is clear atypical behavior, or there is a reason to end the patient’s sentence or its absence from the minimum. Evidence of criminal authorship and materiality, which in this case has not been verified.
just pay off
In a similar case, the Fifth Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice granted an ex officio writ of habeas corpus to absolve a doctor from a charge of passive corruption for receiving R$2,500 from a SUS patient for using equipment he owned during surgery with the support of the public health system.
The understanding adopted was that the classification of the offense of passive corruption stipulated in Article 317 of the Penal Code required proof that the physician had received an undue advantage. This does not happen when there is simply compensation or reimbursement of expenses – as in the case described -, even if the administrative rules of his conduct are not complied with. With information from the press office of the Supreme Court.
HC 191.509 (STF)
HC 541.447 (STJ)
“Entrepreneur. Music enthusiast. Lifelong communicator. General coffee aficionado. Internet scholar.”